Confusion causes people to think Thinking is good .: Confusion is good

Such is the art of Discordian Ethics. Confusion causesfreedom, a state in which one must strive toward resolution.Confusion fulfills potential. Confusion allows individualsto use their respective brains. Discordians, above allthings or almost all things, prefer the general public to usetheir brains, that they can become intelligent creaturesinstead of the domesticated primates the output-onlytelevision determines them to be. This revelation is the keyto all proper ethical and moral thought.

Section 1: Theoretical Rhetoric

There is but one duty. There is but one thing thatdetermines rightness in moral conduct. There is but onecommandment. There is but one obligation, liability, onus,burden, load, responsibility, decree, dictate,accountableness, charge, weight, encumbrance, pressure. Thatduty, commandment, obligation, liability, onus, burden, load,responsibility, decree, dictate, accountableness, charge,weight, encumbrance, pressure is freedom.

Freedom is not that which the natural rights advocateswould have you believe. Freedom is not a natural right, itis a natural event which occurs from it's own essence. Thereis no freedom that dictates the right to do one thing, for ifit gives the right to do one thing, it must also dispose ofthe right to do the opposite. Simpler, natural RIGHTS alwaysimply natural WRONGS, and if freedom is a natural right,imposition is a natural wrong, and if there are naturalwrongs, there cannot be complete freedom. Furthermore,freedom is said to occur in nature due to a separate reason,namely, the existence of mankind. This is an incorrectpostulation. Freedom does not necessarily exist for mankind(i.e., there can exist a man who is not free), as it does notnecessarily exist for birds, trees, or algae. It does notexist because mankind exists. This is evident in the factthat it lies syntactically away from the subject/objectconnexion. The sentence "The bird ate the worm" does notimply that the bird was free to eat the worm. Likewise, "theboy swam across the river" does not indicate any particularfreedom, the indicator is one of action. It can be said,therefore, that mankind's existence does cause to occuraction, but does not cause to occur freedom.

Western culture has also done a great deal to derangethe meaning of freedom. Among Westerners, there is a commonmisconception deriving from the incidental association of theconcept "freedom" with the concept "freedom of choice". Thisis what the Western culture has valuated - a freedom that isconceptualized by the ability to distinguish, separate andselect one particular object as higher, better, or greaterthan another. This is not freedom, but freedom of choice.Freedom of choice is a specific type of freedom, but it isnot what freedom is. All readers are urged to perform theDisassociation of Ideas between freedom, choice and freedomof choice. (For more information or praxis disassociation ofideas, see Wilson, R.A. The Illuminati Papers.)

Yet another flaw comes from yet another noble andrespected source. Webster's dictionary's definition offreedom is, as expected, "the state or quality of beingfree" and, also as expected, it gives a plethora ofdefinitions for free. Most of these definitions have onething in common, the word "not" - not being confined, notbeing restricted, not being held back. These are perfectdefinitions for what freedom is not; and freedom is not whatthese definitions are.

This is not natural-rights account of freedom. This isnot Western culture account of freedom. This is notWebster's account of freedom. Yet, this is what freedom is.

Section 1: The struggle of freedom

To say "I am free" is an instantaneous denial. It isnever the case that any one is free, but it is the case thatall should be striving toward it. Freedom embodies itself inthat strive, in that yearning for accomplishment. Wherethere is purpose or desire, Spanish cajones, a need withpassion for advancement, there is freedom. To see one's selfas far in front, ahead, and striving to reach that front iswhere freedom can be seen. When the front is reached, theself will have gone farther, and the struggle continues.This is why freedom is unattainable; when freedom is thoughtto have been reached, it has actually been driven furtheraway. Freedom is an inclined plane - when one stands still,one moves backward. Mankind has been standing still for howmany centuries, now?

Grok: It is a good analogy to picture freedom as an inclinedplane, but it goes somewhat beyond that. Man is at the baseof this triangle, and the light or idea of freedom appears atthe top. Man starts up the triangle side, yearning towardthe idea of freedom, and in this struggle, he has attainedfreedom. He never can reach the apex, the idea or appearanceof freedom, but at the same time, in his struggle to be freehe becomes free and is only free in that struggle. When manstops to say "I am free; I have reached the top and I havefreedom," he lies; because if his struggle stops he standsstill, and if he stands still he slides down the side, in anopposing direction to his freedom.

To fulfill potential, is freedom.

Section 1: Formulation of an ethical theory

If it is understood to the reader that the Discordianbelief maintains that freedom is the end for the means, andthat right conduct is determined by actions that promotefreedom, SHe is wrong. Actions that promote freedom are theactions that Discordians wish to accomplish themselves, butthese actions are not essential because of moral obligation,they are merely free acts in themselves caused in theindividual's struggle of freedom. It is true that theethical theory is based on the struggle of freedom; but, ifit was that right conduct was the promotion of freedom, theremust first have been an absolute sense that freedom was thegreatest thing to promote (in some sense similar to Mill'shappiness), thereby denying that freedom was unattainable, inthat if it wasn't attainable it could not have been thegreatest of all things, as there would always have been onething possibly greater, an attainable freedom. This theorywould have run concurrent with the natural rights theory, inthat to say "I am free" would have been not only possible,but also an accepted state of human nature. This not beingthe case, the Discordian Theory of Ethics will now be built.

To build an ethical theory, there must first be a basisof understanding, a basis in which all ethical theories havein common, a basis on which ethical theories are compared.So stated, it is understood that normative ethics allows usto give a rule of right conduct, and supportive reasons forthat conduct. To begin:

Discordian ethics should therefore describe in some wayright conduct, as in what one "ought" to do in a givensituation. In a sense it does, and in a sense it does not.The free man sees his struggle and reacts in a way unique andindividual to himself. His duty is the struggle of freedom,in which he attains the unattainable. His moral conductwould be "right", because he has done so. Of the unfree man,however, does this make his conduct morally wrong? Is aperson who is not striving for freedom being unethical?

Simply put, nothing is morally wrong. Neither the freeman nor the unfree man can perform an act that is morallywrong. All acts have a potential, and where a person strivesto fulfill it's potential, a moral wrong cannot occur, sincefreedom is being asserted. In the unfree man, an act canoccur and a potential can be fulfilled, but the spirit of theact, the emotion, the passion, will be different; in thiscase, no freedom is being asserted, so it would seem thatthis is a moral wrong. But who would hold an unfree manmorally responsible for his actions? This act is not a moralwrong, it is simply not morally right. Acts which neitherhinder nor promote freedom have no basis in it and,therefore, are excluded from the determination of moralityaltogether.

It would appear, however, that an action which is doneby a free man in order to worsen his or another's freedomwould be morally wrong. As said before, EVERY act has apotential, and where a person strives to fulfill thatpotential, a moral wrong cannot occur. The consequences ofthat action are immaterial and irrelevant, the action itselfis what determines rightness in moral conduct. Moral wrongs,then, would not exist in any action, despite it'sconsequences.

Section 1: Applying the Discordian Theory of Ethics

Systems are made up of Order and Disorder. A systemthat contains only ordered information is incomplete, as is asystem that contains only disordered entropy. (This is notincomplete as a car without an engine is incomplete, butincomplete as a hydrogen atom is without an neutron. It isnot "unfinished", it simply "does not contain all parts".)The brain is such a system. If the brain receives onlyordered information, it would never be capable of filling-in-the-blanks. If the brain only receives static images ofdisordered entropy, it will never be able to learn.

This is the driving force behind many Discordianpractices. Knowing that the general public has an excellentidea of order but no clue as to how to appreciate disorder,disordered information is sent randomly into society invarious forms to compete with the opposition.

The effect of disorder on an ordered structure can servetwo functions. First, the ordered structure can collapse,unable to incorporate the new data, or second, the new datacan be integrated and the ordered structure modified. (Thereare other possibilities of the order-disorder integration,but these are not useful for Discordians. For example, thedisordered information could be discarded by the orderedstructure, and thus rendered useless. This kind of treatmenthas been given for years by the government on topics like LSDresearch and some branches of quantum physics.) Of thesefunctions, the second seems to be the more desirable. Thebreakdown of a structure is sometimes deemed necessary, butmore often than not it appears as though the structure shouldat least remain intact, and new information just be graduallyaccepted into the structure. This would give a greater"value" to the whole structure, as it would be more readilyable to accept further disordered information.

The application for a Discordian, then, would be toforce disordered information into a society without thesociety invalidating itself, so that it gives either thesociety as a whole or individual members of that society thechance for greater freedom. Whether the potentials of thosefreedoms hinder or contradict each other is irrelevant, thefreedom itself is the aim of the Discordian's actions.

(Note, however, that this is not the only action thatcan be derived from the theory; there are other possiblecourses of action in, it seems, an infinite number. Sinceany given action has a certain potential, if there are aninfinite number of possible actions, then there are aninfinite number of possible potentials that could be filled.The ability for enhancing freedom by composing disorderedinformation is merely one of these possible potentials, andis not part of ethics itself.)

To understand how freedom is enhanced by the integrationof disorder, please re-read the first two paragraphs of thissection, on systems' order and disorder. When disorderedinformation is sent into an incomplete ordered system, it canbe integrated, and this integration can only take placefreely. Until an individual notices the potential of thisdisordered information, the potential cannot be fulfilled.The ordered information will deal only with other orderedinformation, since it would not be able to understand thedisorder. Only after an individual realizes that thisdisorder can be used will it be integrated into the system.This is a free integration, the only kind of integrationpossible.

Section 1: Application in Syllogistic Form

The application of the theory can be stated in the formof a syllogism.

Syllogism 1A2A

Integration of disorder leads to freedom Freedom is good Integration of disorder is good

This form can be used to place more specific subjectsand predicates. For example, Syllogism 1A at the top of thisreport dealt with freedom in thought, with the disorder beingconfusion. The following syllogism further examines this.

Syllogism 1A2A2B

Heresy exhibits religious freedom Religious freedom is good Heresy is good

Here, the form of freedom is religious belief, and theopposing disorder would be, literally, heresy. Theunderstanding would be that organized religion can only beconquered by disorganizing religion.

Section 1: Conclusion

There are many controversies: the definition of freedom,the preference of disorder, the number of possiblepotentials, and others. They are all linked together by theDiscordian Theory of Ethics, which shows that:

- Rightness of an action is based on freedom of the action - There are no moral wrongs - Consequences are irrelevant to ethics - Actions which have no basis in freedom have no basis in ethics

It is asked of the reader to delve into thesecontroversies in an effort to draw them to their reasonableconclusion, whether that means 'solved' or not. Papers willbe written, pamphlets distributed, the usual lot, but untilthe Discordian Theory of Ethics is studied and known by everyindividual possible, the cause seems lacking. The DiscordianTheory provides an alternative to the bogus theories thatwere it's predecessors; please read, write, listen, speak,and generally aid the cause.